Friday, February 6, 2009

Isn't there supposed to be some rule that baseball is, like, inherently anti-sexual?

Look, Randy, unnecessarily complicated charts aren't funny. Nor is being intentionally nonsensical. Sure, you had a few gags here and there that were okay. And I suppose, if anyone ever used the analogy anymore, ever, maybe it was meant to be useful? I mean, I sure as hell didn't know what the "base" analogy meant. Maybe that's why it's just not that funny?

But it's just--

okay i can't go on like this. WHAT THE FUCK IS WITH THE ART. She is fucking HOVERING OVER THE TOP OF A CHAIR. And then she does this fucked up spidery thing, like she is coming down to DEVOUR HER YOUNG, and then she's BACK TO THE FUCKING HOVERING. WHAT THE FUCK RANDALL. WHY DO YOUR WOMEN HOVER. Is that how it's going to be? In your world women never come into contact with... chairs? Why do you hate Jesus? Why do you hate freedom? WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK

Moving on.

We have another nod at furries, which is, okay, creepy. And what the fuck? Napoleon's Forces? Random is not funny. Nonsensical is not funny. Anyone can do it, and you know what? It's not funny. There's a trick to it. You need to find something which is nonsensical but appears, at first glance, to make sense. It should be a "wait, what?" moment where you actually try to think about it. That's how you do random humor. You do not just randomly throw Napoleon into a sexual analogy.

Credit where it's due: I found the initial phases of conversation, apart from it being entirely unrealistic that I would ever have it with anyone, ever, kind of amusing. "I think that's... shortstop?" (Which is actually between first and second but I still liked it.) Then it took a dive into "I know, I will just THROW OUT A BUNCH OF RANDOM SPORTS TERMS" and then...

CAPS LOCK IS CLEARLY CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL! SO IS SAYING FUCK A LOT! FUCK FUCK FUCK! SEE!? Now see how annoying that is? If you want to review a webcomic that's fine by me, but at least do it with a little dignity and wit.

Sorry for posting so many times but AHHHHHHHHHHHHH THE GRAMMAR GODS WILL FROWN UPON ME TODAY. (P.S. Thank you for shaming me for that, no really that really bothers me when people do it and I think anyone, including myself should be publicly humiliated when they make that mistake) (P.P.S. Just because I want to read intellectual reviews doesn't make ME intellectual)

The tagline of this blog is "a vitriolic and bitter collection of unwarranted nastiness" but unwarranted means baseless. Lucky for you Randall covered your bases and brought enough for everyone today. (end bad joke)

Anyone spot the other 2 random jokes that are just random and not really funny? "Your Base", a reference to an old internet meme, "all your base belong to us", wow Randall, you are still way behind the times! Perhaps, however, this falls into the case where it appears that it fits, but then is random, as Rob mentions in the blog post.

And what about the crappy "base 2" joke? (decode the binary into ascii, it says "base 2"). the binary in a sex joke doesn't fit at all!

GreaterSteven: I have heard of the bases/sexual activity business before.

That doesn't make the comic funny.

Everyone else: Yeah I thought the panels were funny enough. The map was amusing, but definitely brought down the level of funny.

Randall and his stupid AYB references! Just because it was funny then doesn't mean shoving it into a comic that talks about bases will be funny! Same with the damn "base 2" business.

Cuddlefish: CAPSLOCK DEFINITELY /IS/ CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL and I have disabled it for you. At least you are okay with being mocked for sucky elementary grammatical mistakes. Maybe it is only semi-disabled for you.

I think Randall's safe with the "let me explain this sexual metaphor for you" setup, but there are multiple fouls in the last panel.

Eye contact from Janeane Garofalo? 2Outfielders1Glove? Foul Ball? In the first case, no that requires too muck geekiness to be a valid joke, and in the latter two cases, poor execution. I prefer sex jokes over internet jokes and blank space over that stupid pun.

Really, I'd be satisfied if this were as straightforward as the "conversion chart" comic, but some of the jokes stretch the diagram past its effective purpose, and the wax melts before the wings even glide.

Also, just like with the conversion chart, I expect this one to become a poster/printout in all the wrong circles, namely, anyplace where such a poster would be acceptable.

Hi, I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the quality of xkcd decreasing. This last one, about sports, was what made me really realise it: xkcd isn't anymore what it used to be. It used to be about geeky (?) thoughts that I had as well, making me realise I wasn't the only one in the world. And there used to be classics, things I could hang up on the wall at my workplace. These days, it's all about current day events, sports, and too much about romance and not enough about the math, sarcasm and language. I miss the old xkcd days!

Meh, i have to agree with Cuddlefish. A lot of your jokes recently seem to be something along the lines of 'I AM TYPING IN CAPS. WHILE MOCKING RANDALL. HAR DE HAR DE HAR!' I mean, really, your criticisms are valid, and sometimes your blog is funny, but that joke = Lame.

Like, not only is that not a 'joke', we've done it... twice in the last five comics? And only once was it even remotely substantial?

Seriously, if your problem with something is that it features writing in all caps, you should probably devote some serious time to introspection. Sit back, relax, contemplate how it is your life has gotten to this point. Consider retiring and becoming a monk. Be at peace, with God and your fellow man.

Rob, I like your ad hominem attacks when I disagree with you! They're so friendly here at xkcd: overrated, and not just blind followers like the people at xkcd are to the opposite side.

I have agreed with xkcd: overrated in the past. A few times, actually. In fact, there's a link to something I said in one of the recent posts on this site. Today I disagree, I explain why in a polite comment, using perfect english, and you start with the insults.

Here's the deal--I am not the "king of illiteracy" for not reading that you had heard of the metaphor. Because you did write that you hadn't heard of the metaphor.

"I mean, I sure as hell didn't know what the "base" analogy meant."

Other than that, I can't see why you would refer to me as such...other than to be a dick with baseless accusations. Good day to you sir!

This is because you are illiterate, and lack basic reading comprehension skills. Were you capable of finer understanding of the written language, you would note that not one sentence earlier I implied having heard of it before.

Fun fact: it is quite possible to have heard of something /without knowing what it means./ Indeed, it sees frequent use in pop culture, but often plays on the ambiguity inherent there! Give 'reading comprehension' a try some time, won't you?

Also fun fact: I mostly insult people like you because you're kind of hilarious when you get all riled up and start being like "ZOMG AD HOMINEM" and "I CAN'T SEE WHY YOU WOULD SAY THAT YOU ARE CLEARLY DUMB AND I AM SMART." I giggle at your self-righteous "I AM LOGICAL AND POLITE AND PERFECT AT ENGLISH."

I'm not riled up. The entire point of that previous comment was to emphasize the extent to which I am not riled up, and point out nicely why what you are doing is alienating people who are reasonable and often agree with you.

If I can show you what you look like to the outsider--somebody who does not examine the comics with the intent of an honest review and in fact has to stretch to make jokes about why the comics are bad, as previous commentors have noted--perhaps you will change your ways and gather a more considerable following.

As it is, people see zealotry not unlike the Cuddlefish for Randall. Every once and a while you fill in for Carl and you try very hard to mimic his comedy and very hard to think of jokes to make fun of xkcd and very hard to come off as superior to xkcd. And you fail, as you are failing right now.

And as for the baseball analogy...the humor is found in the ambiguity? Like this comic?!

"I am not riled up." Only people who are seething mad say things like that. You know that, right? You and your arch superiority. It's so cuddly!

Anyway. You make a few false claims, like 'you try very hard.' I really don't! I put very little effort into it, actually, because XKCD is kind of shitty and doesn't merit me putting effort into it. I'm not trying to make jokes, even. I am just writing about the comic and hitting publish. Nor am I trying to emulate Carl's comedy! Actually basically everything you said that I am doing, I don't do. So, congratulations?

In any case, you are quite correct--I'm not honestly reviewing the comics, I am, as I said previously, openly mocking them. Do you forget that you are reading "[a] vitriolic and bitter collection of unwarranted nastiness about a silly and harmless comic?"

As for your "representing the outsider"--I wonder if you can fathom the depths to which I don't care. We're not talking baseline apathy, here, like how you don't really care about that guy behind you missing the subway by a few seconds. Nor is it the sort of apathy that comes when you run into a friend from high school several years later, and find out they've gotten boring as the years wear on, all of the fun and life gone from them, and you just can't bring yourself to care about what they have to say.

No, this is an apathy that fills the dark recesses of my psyche completely and utterly, a choking darkness of apathy, an apathy so deep and total it threatens to overwhelm the senses.

Oh, protip: declaring yourself polite and reasonable is usually the easiest way to make yourself look like a pompous self-righteous douche. I actually actively try to alienate folks like you, so thanks for the word of encouragement.

I'm not saying I don't care about your existence--I enjoy tormenting you! Especially since you've emasculated yourself into taking out your anger by pretending you're all polite and reasonable. I just don't care what you have to say, especially as regards to 'showing me what I look like to the outsider.'

Oh Paddy, I missed your helpful link earlier! Except Google implies that you didn't know something and just made it up, instead of making a factual error. This makes your link not helpful! Fact-checking is for people who think they are not in possession of the facts, and also not for /random asides that have no bearing on the rest of the post./

Jay: I try to cut back, but then people come and get all offended when I insult them like I do everyone, ever, and I just get so /excited./

I haven't posted here before, but I usually swing by to see your interpretations of xkcd. This thread has really kind of ruined this site for me.

I really liked the premise that you despise xkcd enough that you made a whole website about it. However, your hostility toward GreaterSteven is so over the top that you are coming across as bitter and insecure about lots more than just xkcd. My level of respect for you has greatly diminished because of it.

I am posting as anonymous only because I don't have a google blogger account, and don't feel like making one. Feel free to respond however you wish.

None of the fly-by commenters ever really seem to read anything except for the stuff that bothers them. -_-

Also, PEOPLE WHO POST AS ANON, there is a button you can press where you can enter your name and do not have to declare "I AM ONLY POSTING AS ANON BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A BLOGGER ACCOUNT" YOU DO NOT NEED A BLOGGER ACCOUNT JUST PUSH THE BUTTON

Well, I was actually more referring to, for instance, " WE'RE QUIRKY...AND WE'RE IN A QUIRKY RELATIONSHIP! A HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!" WHY did it have to be all in caps? WHY WHY WHY?!! Also, did it ever occur to you that the people who post here are bitter empty shells as well? I sure am.

Also, what did you mean by " Only twice in the past five comics?' I can see caps in EVERY POST POSTED.For example, and I quote:'O''H''M''I'As you can see, I have proven who is the term-stretching,bitter and lonely critic. - Some Gu

I miss Carl. Rob week is like when your favorite show fires its writing team and tries very hard to make sure you're not aware of the fact. But despite delivering the same product... it's just not as good.

Aww thanks K, I love you too! Do you want to go out later, get some coffee, maybe some dinner or something? Or a movie? I'll call you, or you can call me when you're free, it's cool, I know you're busy, just let me know, all right?

Nah. You have to expect it when you have a week of abnormally good comics. I mean, cut off the map on this one and you've got a decent comic with creepy-ass art.

It just happened to coincide with my posting this week, so they have something convenient to blame! When it's Carl writing negative reviews of better-than-Randy's-average comics, they accuse him of jumping the shark or of dishonesty or something.

Rob, regular reader here; I hardly ever agree with you guys, but think the site's funny all the same. However, this time your commentary crap. It's not even funny. If I was to criticise this post in the same way you've criticised the comic it would go something like this: "Rob you're a fat lonely bastard, YOUR MUM'S A WHORE and your Dad killed himself because he was disappointed with your failure. Loser." As it is I'd never say such a thing, but I will say that your post is just made of pure fail.

Now, that's just not accurate. With the possible exception of the paragraph about the creepy-ass art, there's nothing in there which is ad hominem. Did you even read the post? Maybe you are confusing it with my responses to the comments? I know it can be hard to keep them apart, what with the one appearing on the front page and the other clearly being in the comment section.

Seriously. There is absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about the post itself. If you're going to call my post 'pure fail' could you at least respond to the post?

For those who don't know, the Napoleon's Forces marker is almost undoubtedly a reference to a graph by Charles Joseph Minard that depicts the march of Napoleon's men throughout Napoleon's 1812 invasion of Russia. It's pretty much the most ingenious informational graphic ever designed, so it seems only natural a graph comic like xkcd would EVENTUALLY reference it.

Not that this reference is actually funny, mind you, it's just fitting with Randall's proclivity for referencing anything that, well, he feels like referencing at the moment.

For information on Minard's graphical mastery, here's the Wikipedia page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Joseph_Minard

All this criticism of criticism makes me imagine someone making xkcdsuckssucks, for people who want to talk about how both xkcd and xkcdsucks have gone stale. Then I look and see that, naturally, Carl has already nabbed that URL.

Man, why do all of the internet people think they can call anything they want hypocritical and be accurate about it? I mean, I am not (1) making baseball sexual while claiming it is anti-sexual; (2) making unnecessarily complicated charts; (3) drawing hovering spider-monstrosity women; (3) making furry references; (4) adding Napoleon's forces to a chart about sex; (5) being deliberately nonsensical. I could go through other posts if you want.

Hypocrisy refers to "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform" (thanks, the OAD!)--the closest thing you could possibly come up with is saying my posts aren't funny (which I am not really claiming they are) while I am accusing Randall of also being not funny, which is not hypocrisy, because saying "Randall is not funny" is making absolutely no claims about myself.

I mean, I know it's super fun to throw out 'hypocritical' because it's the only word longer than 'chicken' you know, but you should probably only use it when it actually applies, ie when someone is making claims about standards they don't actually have for themselves.

More specifically, I knew that you are apparently not clever enough to spot the other person posting named Jay, despite him being a regular poster and having done so multiple times in this very thread, and that you are apparently not clever enough to know how to use the word 'hypocritical' correctly. Also, taking anything, ever, seriously on the internet? Not a sign of genius. (Actually a sign of being an idiot.)

Not seeing another poster's name does not really imply lack of intelligence. Not knowing all the regular posters at a website has nothing to do with intelligence. And to be honest, I get distracted and lazy, my apologies for failing to read all the comments here. I was clearly unaware of how much it determined my intelligence.

As far as accusing me of using hypocritical incorrectly, how would you know? You have no idea what my reasoning behind it is and you haven't bothered to ask.

I think it's silly that you consider me stupid when you entirely ignore any intelligent argument and continually insult those who criticize you. It's kind of adorable to be honest. For some reason it reminds me of an angry bulldog puppy.

Tee hee, oh, you and your "nothing to do with intelligence." Look, I know you are using it incorrectly because the word hypocritical cannot be applied to my criticisms correctly. It's just not how the word is used. I could go through the earlier ones if you like and point out all the ways I am not making claims to moral standards I don't actually have.

See, there's this thing we have in the English language, it is called definitions. Have you heard of them? They are what words mean! Hypocritical has a definition, which means it actually means something! That means that, when someone uses the word, people can understand what he means /without him ever explaining it/!!!!!!!! It's pretty neat, they just thought of it a few weeks ago.

Unfortunately that means you can't hold anybody hostage to your definitions and say "wow you are so hypocritical" and then just smugly sit back and be like "ha ha he doesn't know what I mean because I haven't explained it."

Anyway, I insult people because the intelligent folks out there spot that I am just being a dick, for laughs, and the rest of them provide more opportunity for said laughs, because people who take things seriously on the internet are kind of hilarious!

The thing is, the actual /thing/ is, 'Rob's posts are more hypocritical and less intelligent,' is not an intelligent argument. It's kind of just a random insult! Those aren't very useful to anyone, but they are good for a laugh! So I make fun of it, for laughs.

Even if you put reasoning behind it, it wouldn't have anything useful to say, because (a) I am not trying to be intelligent (b) I am not trying to make any moral claims (c) I don't really care if I am hypocritical about a webcomic (d) THIS IS THE INTERNET. So while I'm sure you're just chomping at the bit for me to ask you to loose the full fury of your poorly written words on me, defending your misuse of the word hypocrite in painstaking detail, I'm just not interested! But I will keep mocking you.

Incidentally points abcd above are kind of why I "ignore" any "intelligent argument" and continually insult those who "criticize" me--they are really not attacking points I care about! Also, taking arguing seriously on the internet? Next you'll be calling it a 'debate.' I used to do that, actually! Then I /stopped being 17./

Rob, you are a complete failure at life if you have to poorly mock a comic strip just because your inferior mind cannot readily understand it. Get your head out of your ass before it effects your judgement too much more and you're reduced to a creature with less brains than the jellyfish. Though I doubt that'll help because your vocabulary suggests you have a monkey helping you with word choice.

What the hell is this?

Welcome. This is a website called XKCD SUCKS which is about the webcomic xkcd and why we think it sucks. My name is Carl and I used to write about it all the time, then I stopped because I went insane, and now other people write about it all the time. I forget their names. The posts still seem to be coming regularly, but many of the structural elements - like all the stuff in this lefthand pane - are a bit outdated. What can I say? Insane, etc.

I started this site because it had been clear to me for a while that xkcd is no longer a great webcomic (though it once was). Alas, many of its fans are too caught up in the faux-nerd culture that xkcd is a part of, and can't bring themselves to admit that the comic, at this point, is terrible. While I still like a new comic on occasion, I feel that more and more of them need the Iron Finger of Mockery knowingly pointed at them. This used to be called "XKCD: Overrated", but then it fell from just being overrated to being just horrible. Thus, xkcd sucks.

Here is a comic about me that Ann made. It is my favorite thing in the world.

Frequently Asked Questions

Divided into two convenient categories, based on whether you think this website

Rob's Rants

When he's not flipping a shit over prescriptivist and descriptivist uses of language, xkcdsucks' very own Rob likes writing long blocks of text about specific subjects. Here are some of his excellent refutations of common responses to this site. Think of them as a sort of in-depth FAQ, for people inclined to disagree with this site.